Employers' primary liability - Stress at work claims

Learning Outcomes

After reading this article, you will be able to explain the legal principles governing employers' primary liability for stress at work claims. You will understand the scope of the employer's duty of care, the concept of foreseeability, the Hatton guidelines, and how breach and causation are established in psychiatric injury claims arising from workplace stress. You will be able to apply these principles to SQE1-style scenarios and identify common pitfalls.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the legal framework for employers' liability in stress at work claims. In your revision, focus on:

• the scope and content of the employer’s common law duty of care regarding employees’ mental health and stress at work
• the requirements for foreseeability and the Hatton guidelines
• how breach of duty and causation are established in psychiatric injury claims
• the distinction between stress at work claims and other psychiatric injury claims
• practical steps employers should take to manage risk and reduce liability

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. What is the threshold question for establishing an employer’s duty of care in a stress at work claim?
2. Name two factors that may make psychiatric injury from workplace stress foreseeable to an employer.
3. What is the significance of the Hatton guidelines in stress at work claims?
4. True or false? An employer is always liable if an employee suffers psychiatric injury due to stress at work.
5. What must a claimant prove to establish causation in a stress at work claim?

Introduction

Employers owe a duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of their employees. This duty extends to both physical and mental health, including the risk of psychiatric injury caused by workplace stress. Claims for stress at work are a specific category of employers’ liability and have distinct legal requirements compared to other psychiatric injury claims.

Key Term: duty of care The legal obligation on employers to take reasonable steps to protect employees from foreseeable harm, including psychiatric injury from workplace stress.

The Employer’s Duty of Care and Stress at Work

Employers must provide a safe system of work, competent staff, adequate equipment, and a safe workplace. This duty is personal and non-delegable. The duty to protect employees from psychiatric harm caused by workplace stress is part of the duty to provide a safe system of work.

Key Term: safe system of work The arrangements, procedures, and supervision put in place by an employer to ensure employees can perform their work safely, including minimising risks of stress-related harm.

Foreseeability and the Hatton Guidelines

The threshold for liability in stress at work claims is foreseeability. The employer will only be liable if it was reasonably foreseeable that the employee would suffer psychiatric injury due to workplace stress.

Key Term: foreseeability The ability to predict or expect that a particular type of harm might occur in the circumstances.

The leading authority is Hatton v Sutherland [2002], which established practical guidelines for determining foreseeability and liability in stress at work claims. These guidelines have been approved by the House of Lords and remain central for SQE1.

The Hatton Guidelines (Summary)

1. Foreseeability of harm: The key question is whether injury to health through stress at work was reasonably foreseeable.
2. Knowledge of the employer: Foreseeability depends on what the employer knew or ought to have known about the individual employee.
3. Assumption of normal coping ability: Employers are generally entitled to assume employees can withstand normal pressures of the job unless made aware of a particular problem or vulnerability.
4. Signs of stress: Factors that may make harm foreseeable include high workloads, repeated absences, complaints about stress, or previous episodes of psychiatric illness.
5. Reasonable steps: If harm is foreseeable, the employer must take reasonable steps to prevent it. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances.
6. Causation: The claimant must prove that the employer’s breach of duty caused or materially contributed to the psychiatric injury.

Worked Example 1.1

Scenario:
An employee, Alex, repeatedly tells his manager that he is overwhelmed by his workload and has taken several periods of sick leave for stress. No changes are made to his duties. Alex later suffers a breakdown and is diagnosed with depression.

Answer:
The employer was on notice of Alex’s difficulties. Psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable. The employer failed to take reasonable steps to reduce Alex’s workload. The breach of duty materially contributed to Alex’s illness. Alex is likely to succeed in a stress at work claim.

Breach of Duty and Reasonable Steps

If psychiatric injury is foreseeable, the employer must take reasonable steps to prevent harm. What is reasonable depends on the size of the business, the nature of the work, and the resources available. Reasonable steps may include adjusting workloads, providing support, or referring the employee to occupational health.

Key Term: breach of duty The failure of an employer to meet the standard of care required by law, resulting in a risk of harm to the employee.

Worked Example 1.2

Scenario:
Priya works in a busy call centre. She has no history of mental health problems and has not complained about her workload. She suffers a sudden breakdown after a period of increased pressure.

Answer:
There were no warning signs or complaints. The employer was entitled to assume Priya could cope with normal pressures. Psychiatric injury was not foreseeable. The employer is unlikely to be liable.

Causation in Stress at Work Claims

The claimant must prove that the employer’s breach of duty caused or materially contributed to the psychiatric injury. This can be challenging if there are multiple causes, such as personal problems outside work.

Key Term: causation The requirement to show that the employer’s breach of duty was a factual cause of the employee’s psychiatric injury.

If the injury is divisible, damages may be apportioned. If the injury is indivisible, the employer may be liable for the whole loss if their breach made a material contribution.

Worked Example 1.3

Scenario:
Sam has a history of anxiety. He tells his employer about his condition and requests a reduction in workload. The employer ignores his request. Sam later suffers a relapse.

Answer:
The employer was aware of Sam’s vulnerability. Psychiatric injury was foreseeable. The employer’s failure to act materially contributed to Sam’s relapse. The employer is likely to be liable, even though Sam had a pre-existing condition.

Practical Risk Management for Employers

Employers should:

• Monitor workloads and working hours.
• Respond promptly to complaints or signs of stress.
• Provide access to support services.
• Adjust duties or provide additional resources where appropriate.
• Keep records of actions taken.

Key Term: material contribution Where an employer’s breach of duty is one of several factors that significantly contributed to the employee’s psychiatric injury.

Summary

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The employer’s duty of care includes protecting employees from foreseeable psychiatric injury caused by workplace stress.
• Foreseeability is the threshold for liability—employers are entitled to assume normal coping ability unless put on notice.
• The Hatton guidelines set out the key principles for stress at work claims.
• Breach of duty occurs if the employer fails to take reasonable steps after becoming aware of a risk.
• The claimant must prove that the employer’s breach caused or materially contributed to the psychiatric injury.
• Employers should monitor for signs of stress and respond appropriately to reduce liability risk.

Key Terms and Concepts

• duty of care
• safe system of work
• foreseeability
• breach of duty
• causation
• material contribution